It was codified in a later pamphlet called the Toledot Yeshu which was basically a parody of a Gospel. Toledot Yeshu - Wikipedia
Jesus and the Pharisees wanted little to do with each other. Jesus made numerous disparaging remarks about them and the Pharisees eventually had him killed or so the story goes.
When you consider that of the three main factions of Jews living at the dawn of the common era, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, it is to thePharisees that modern Judaism credits its founding.
The essential component of Christianity is the worship of Christ, though. Philisophical precursers to the ethical teachings certainly existed, but it was stil Judiasm. The worship of Christ, or at least the veneration of Christ as a unique salvic figure, is the sine qua non of Christianity.
Plucking grain on the Sabbath and eating without washing your hands were and are no-nos in Judaism. (I think healing on the Sabbath is ok, at least under the circumstances in the Gospels’ story.) Maybe you could say Jesus was an early Reform Jew? 
No cite, might be a UL, but I read somewhere that, around the time of the first moon landing, a clergyman objected to its being called “the greatest achievement in history.” “What about the Resurrection?” he said. Isaac Asimov responded that it was that greatest achievement in history that was done by goyim.
So the story goes. I hope you’ll forgive me if I offend, (You’re Christian. It’s your job. 
) but read as history, that part of the story really doesn’t hang together well. For one thing, Jesus didn’t commit blasphemy and, as Diogenes noted, saying you were the Messiah wasn’t a crime. Had him killed for what?
Wait a sec, those might be the conditions for proving you’re a Messiah these days, but they couldn’t have at the time of Jesus. The Temple existed at that time, so rebuilding it hardly have been a criterion.
If the Gospels are to be believed, it was the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, who had Jesus killed. The Sanhedrin (the priests who the Gospels say tried Jesus and turned him over to Pilate)were Sadducees.
Although Jesus argued with Pharisees, and sometimes criticized them for hypocrisy, his actual teachings were right in line with them (he even cribbed from Rabbi Hillel), his philosphy and theology was the same, and, as I said above, his arguments were a normal, even a necessary, part of Pharasaic practice (and since the Pharisaic schools led to the formation of rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the Temple and the Priests, argument is now a normal part of Jewish study in general).
Jesus’ main complaint about the Pharisees (and Jesus was probably a Pharisee himself, by the way) was not theit teachings, but what he saw as their hypocrisy. He actually told people to do waht the Pharisees said, because he thought it was right, but not to do what they did.
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. “Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’
(Mt. 23:1-7)
He didn’t think they were wrong in what they taught, he just thought thatthey were full of themselves. He saw them as grandiose and grandstanding. hypokrites, in Greek, meant “stage actor.” Jesus was taking the piss out the Pharisees for being pompous and theatrical. Not for what they preached, but for their lack of humility. This would have been a normal sort of criticism and internal conflict within those schools. In the wake of the diaspora, and the emergance of Christianity as an entirely new (and almost entirely Gentile) religious movement as opposed to a particular Jewish school, what was originally a normal, internal, family argument was exaggerated into a much wider schism than anything that likely really existed.
No, Maimondes added that because the existence of the Temple is necessary for some of the other things to happen, but at the time, the minimum requirements were that the Messiah would at least be able to get rid of the Romans and restore the Davidic Kingdom.
The fact that Jesus was convicted for blasphemy after saying something that wasn’t blaspemous (or against Jewish law at all) is only one of the many aspects of Mark’s trial before the Sanhedrin that show it to be almost certainly a fiction.
John’s Gospel does not have trial, and just has the priests turn Jesus over to the Pilate for an unspecified crime. The priests were seen as collaborators with the Romans at the time, and I personally think the liklihood was simply that they helped facilitate his arrest after the disturbance at the Temple, but that they were acting on behalf of the Romans, who wanted to quickly squelch a potential rabble rouser during a time (Passover) when the city was always a powder keg. A lot of scholars believe (and I believe as well) that Mark’s trial was a fiction designed to deemphasize the complicity of the Romans in Jesus’ death and pin the blame on priests instead.
Earlier prophets had also talked about hypocrisy in Judaism. Jesus wasn’t the first one to criticize the Jews of his time for that.
Isaiah 58:5-7, which we read in synagogue every Yom Kippur:
I didn’t say he was the first. I’m trying to show that the kind of criticism and and battling described in the gospels was normal within Jewish practice (and still is). I’m saying that Jesus was not at odds with his own people or his own religion. He was just doing what Rabbis do.
You can see plenty of the same kind of thing in modern Christianity – preachers complaining that Christians aren’t acting like Christians, or that Christian leaders aren’t acting like Christian leaders. I’m not trying to say what Jesus did was new or extraordinary – just the opposite, that it was expected and ordinary.
Oh, I can’t deny that or disagree with that at all, except that I say that I am seeing echoes of it in how John the Baptist was treated.
Ah. Having spent some time around both religions, I take your meaning. Well, I was saying (facetiously) that Judaism might be Jesus minus, or *divided by, *Christianity. Not the same thing.
My personal take on Jesus evolves occasionally & will probably continue to do so, but I see him as a Jew with some ideas, like many Jews, while Xtianity took bits of that & made dogma, within a Hellenistic mystery-religion framework.
:sucks teeth:
Eh, maybe not. Have you read Hyam Maccoby’s thesis that Jesus in fact was a Pharisee, albeit one with a distinct mystical-apocalyptic-political bent? The portrayal of animosity between Jesus & the Pharisees in our Gospels may be due to tensions between Xtians & rabbinical Jews in the time of writing (or even editing) the Gospels.
It’s arguable that Jesus was in fact killed by Sadducees, & the Pharisees got shoehorned into the Gospel account by the Evangelists–later Greek Xtians alienated from rabbinical Judaism. I’m not saying that’s what happened, I’m saying it could be. So Jesus’s relationship with the Pharisees is perhaps not clearly seen in the Xtian tradition.
I certainly have learned something from you regarding regarding Jesus as a pharisee, and the priests being sadducees. It makes sense to me. I acknowledge you are way ahead of me in biblical scholarship.
However, I don’t see how you and a lot of scholars have come to believe that the Roman empire was concerned about an itinerant pacifist rabbi who was one of many Jews who claimed to be a messiah, rather than a local governor trying to appease the religious authorities of the region who had much more reason to see Jesus’ preaching as a threat.
To contest (never mind believe) that your scenario is more accurate than the biblical record in the absence of any other record I’m aware of prompts me to request a cite.
This is true. In Johns Gospel which is highly literary as the same stories in the other synoptic Gospels. He was a threat because they did not want a disturbance during Passover. I don’t think Pilate wanted to execute him and he told the Jews to take care of it according to their laws. When they refused Pilate questioned Jesus and still found no fault in him. John 18: 28-40. When he asked the Jews if they could relaease one prisoner and that if it could be Jesus the crowd yelled for Barbabbas to be released instead of Jesus. Still It was Pilate that ordered him to be scouraged all the while saying he was innocent. The Jews started yelling to crucify him and Pilate said, “I find no fault in this man take him and crucify him yourselves”. The Jews told Pilate Jesus broke the law by by claiming he was the son of God. Pilate took Jesus and asked him where he was from and Jesus said nothing. Pilate got mad and said, “Do you not speak to me? Do you know I have the power to crucify you”?
Jesus answers, “You would have no power over me had it not been given to you from above. For this reason the person that handed me over to you has the greatest sin”. Pilate again tried to release him but the Jews cried out, “If you release him you are not a friend of Caesar”. So Pilate handed him over and said, “Behold your King, Shall I crucify your King?”“The chief priests answered we have no King but Caesar”. Then they handed him over to be crucified.
In John 18:36-37 It explains that it was not any one persons fault that he had to die. It was his mission to die.
Ehhh… that governor wasn’t too big on appeasing. He was actually rebuked by Rome for excessive cruelty/brutality in dealing with his subjects when he was removed from power and was then exiled for his crimes as governor. For the Roman Empire to do something like that was somewhat unusual, to say the least. It’s more likely that he would have eliminated a rabble-rouser on his own without requiring persuasion from someone else.
Edit: it should also be noted that the method of execution shows that the violation was of Roman, not Jewish law. The Romans crucified, the Jews stoned.
The Roman Empire wasn’t concerned about a rabbi and didn’t care what he taught. What was of concern to Pilate (not the Roman Empire) was the fact that somebody was causing a disturbance at the Temple during Passover. During Passover, thousands of people flooded into Jerusalem to sacrifice at the temple, and the Romans were tremendously outnumbered. They were (for good reason) paranoid about riots or uprisings at that time and moved quickly to squelch anything that looked like it could potentially blow up.
The Temple, for obvious reasons, was an especially sensitive area, and Josephus says that the Romans used a lot of extra guards around the courtyards at that time to quickly put an end to any situation that looked like it might be developing. Anybody stirring up trouble in the courtyards, knocking very tables, as Jesus was alleged to have done, claiming he would “destroy the Temple,” assaulting moneychangers, etc. was going to upset people, and that was exactly the kind of thing the Romans summarily executed people for.
By contrast, Jesus was teaching nothing against Jewish law, and nothing he taught was a threat to Jewish authorities. He told people to obey the law and obey Jewish authority. They would have had no reason to fear him or care about him, while the Romans had every reason to care about stomping on a brush fire before it spread to the rest of the city.
In addition to the above points, it should be noted that crucifixion in the provinces was used by the Romans only for crimes against the state. It was not used for Jewish religious crimes (which the Romans did not care about anyway), and they did not do anything because the high priests wanted thenm to. The priests at the time were handpicked by the Romans and were subservient to them. They were viewed as collaborators by the Jewish populace and were viewed with hostility by the Pharisees. They did not have any ability to pressure Pilate. They were his lackeys.
On top of all of this, virtually everything in Mark’s trial before the Sanhedrin (the account which was copied by Matthew and Luke but not by John) is riddled with factual and procedural error. The Sanhedrin never held trials at night, on Passover, on the Sabbath or away from the Temple. They did not render verdicts on capital cries without deliberating for 24 hours. Mark has them convict Jesus of blasphemy for saying something that wasn’t blasphemous under Jewish law. I can go into more detail, but Mark’s trial is so wildly implauble in its details, and so ignorant of Jewish law and trial procedures that it simply isn’t credible as a historical account.
Moreover, even if they HAD convicted Jesus of blasphemy, Pilate would have never crucified him for it or had the slightest interest. Once again, crucifixion was only used for crimes against the Roman state. If Jesus was crucified, it was because of something he did to annoy the Romans, not the priests of the Sanhedrin.
Ironically, while claiming to be the Messiah was not against Jewish law and would not have garnered any wrath from Jewish authorities, it was seen as an affront to Roman authority because claiming to be the Messiah was claiming to be the King of the Jews, and tantamount to a challenge to Roman authority in Judea. Jesus was not the only Messianic claimant from the time, and they were typically all executed by the Romans as a matter of course. Jesus would not have been seen as anyting special in that regard, and his arrest and execution wuld have been very casual and routine. Just one more nutcase they had to roust during Passover.
Now, you asked for a citem but you weren’t clear what you wanted a cite for. Do you want cites for any of the above claims, or do you want a list of scholars who concur that Mark’s trial is a fiction. I assure you, this is not a radical view in the field of Historical Jesus scholarship. Frankly, it’s very difficult to defend as historical.
I think we are forgetting that Jesus had to die. It was commanded by God. Why split hairs over who was ultimately responsible when Jesus basically states it was his own people/ father that handed him over. ‘He who handed me over has the greatest sin’. His own people handed him over. Us, the sinners.
We all killed Jesus, not ‘who’ killed Jesus. Why did he have to die?, So we could live. We did not accept him or his teachings until after his death and resurrection.
It is easy to get hung up on small details and miss the larger picture. Jesus was the vehicle that brought about the New Testament and modern Christianity. it was the separating of the Old and New Testament.
Not guilty, and I can come up several thousand witnesses that can testify that I was nowhere near there when it happened.
It’s been done.